XIV. 1646. At this juncture, the royal cause having become desperate, Charles had thrown himself into the hands of the Scotch army at New ark, May 5, 1646. Petitions against the mutilated Presbyterian government recently established, were presented to the Parliament by the Westminster divines, and by the General Assembly of Scotland. Determined not to resign the ecclesiastical supremacy, yet fearful of offending the Scots, who had a powerful army in the north, and possessed so rich a prize as royalty, the Commons, in order to gain time till they should see whether it were prac ticable to accommodate matters with the King, proposed to the Assembly a string of queries relative to the jus divinum of church-government, in the hope of dividing, or at least, for some time employing that body of aspiring ecclesiastics. Agreeably to their design, in the committee appointed by the divines, the Erastians first created a division, then debated the question for the space of three months, and at length withdrew themselves, as the Independents had done at the first. The report, which was only the resolution of a few high Presbyterians, asserted that Jesus Christ has appointed a church-government distinct from the power of the civil magistrate*, 1000 -5009 ed) or gota sa azilsaoilagegoogd 100 of the Isle of Wight, had not money sufficient pay h penses; and on that account did not attend. * From this report Lightfoot alone dis Nothing can parallel the folly displayed by the Parliament at this important crisis. Now was the time for their securing themselves, by making terms with his Majesty, or of coming to some agreement with the Independents, whom they knew to be so powerful in their own army. But by their wild obstinacy in rejecting the just and moderate claims of toleration preferred by that body, and in maintaining the uniformity of the covenant, they prepared their own destruction*. was now dead. In the mean time the city divines had taken up the argument, and published their Divine Right of the Pres bytery but the Parliament brought them to moderation. : * See end of this chapter, While the question of toleration was pending between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, the city divines, wise heads! petitioned the Assembly from Sion College, against the great Diana of the Independents. This petition was seconded by an imperious demand from Scotland, that there should be no toleration of sectaries, and no liberty of conscience. Such were the sentiments at that time openly avowed, that, according to one writer, to grant men the indulgence of serving God according to their consciences, was to have cast out one devil in order to admit seven worse, In the mean time the royalists stirred up counter-petitioners for liberty in the city and parliamentary army, with the view of dividing the friends of the opposite cause. Taking advantage of these differences, the King too, at the same time, made overtures to Goodwyn and Nye; but these congregationalists put a stop to the correspondence. Either they were determined republicans, which is an improbable supposition; or distrusted the royal word, which has been affirmed; or sought to carry their point by obtaining XV. The Scottish army, desirous to return home with their spoil, carried the King northward from Newark to Newcastle, where they treated him with ceremonious respect. He was not, however, here exempt from the perverted theology and the vile taste of canting sermons. After one of these harangues from the appropriate text of 2 Sam. xix. 41-43, in which the Scots were made to denominate themselves the men of Judah, who had ten parts in the King, he found that all their pledges of loyalty presupposed the condition of his taking their darling covenant. Two doubts, he stated, occasioned his reluctance to this measure; namely, whether episcopacy were not to be supported as jure divino; and whether his coronation-oath, which engaged him to support the established religion, could lawfully be violated. As he professed himself willing to discuss these two questions, and open to conviction, Henderson, a learned divine, and head of the Presbyterian party, arrived from Scotland, to banish the royal scruples. With this antagonist Charles entered into a controversy in writing (May 29, 1646), which may be considered as exhibiting the marrow of the arguments employed at this period by the two contending parties. The King, separate communion, on principles of rational liberty op recognised. To this last opinion I have the charity to scribe. They petitioned for the Baptists, as we!! selves. 4 after alluding to his scruples already mentioned, demanded what warrant could be produced from Scripture for subjects forcing the conscience of the King. The Scotch divine answered, that the reformation of Henry VIII. was defective, by transferring the supremacy from one wrong head to another: and, like a bold rebel, threatened the King with the terrible denunciation (Esther, iv. 14), "For if thou altogether hold thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” He denied the apostolical institution of episcopacy, asserting the primitive identity of bishop and presbyter. There appears, said he, a beautiful superiority in degree, but not in order, in the New Testament; as no Evangelist is above another, so, no presbyter is above another*, Many Episcopalians supposed that presbyters might ordain presbyters. King James had never asserted episcopacy by divine right. He entered a caveat against arguing from the usage of the primitive church; since Scripture was the only infallible rule. Even in the days of the Apostles, Diotrephes sought to have the preeminence, and the mystery of iniquity began to work. Was there no difference in A sophism: supposing the King to have granted that bishop and presbyter were the same. the effect of baptism performed by a midwife, and by a minister, though ordained by presbyters? It was idle to plead the coronation-bath, since from any clause the party to be benefited by it might give release. In a few days the King delivered in a second paper. No text, he maintained, could sanction a reformation unless under royal authority. That of Henry VIII. was improved by Edward and Elizabeth. Presbyters could not ordain presbyters: the Presbyterian discipline was never established before the time of Calvin; and he would undertake to prove the apostolical institution, the succession, and the consequent necessity of episcopacy, if the aid of books, or of learned divines, were allowed him. To solve doubtful passages, primitive usage might be called in; otherwise each private spirit would be the interpreter of Scripture; which would contradict 2 Peter, i. 10, and introduce all confusion. Diotrephes afforded no case in point. He openly opposed St. John. Baptism administere by a woman, might, when administered, take effect; but could not be allowed to be regular: and in regard to the other sacrament, since a lawful minister was necessary, the question of episcopacy was of the utmost importance. On the subject of the coronation-oath, Henderson might be met grounds; for the party benefited by clause, was in fact the church of Eng the church of England therefore she |